3 ms·

The source you link says that Portugal had a total of 68 drug-induced deaths in 2019, corresponding to 10 per million. In 2001 there were 76 deaths, correspondi

by tfourb 3y ago

The source you link says that Portugal had a total of 68 drug-induced deaths in 2019, corresponding to 10 per million. In 2001 there were 76 deaths, corresponding to about 7.3 deaths per million. So overdose deaths rose slightly relative to the total population (they did not double). But for this to be a valid argument about the merits of Portugal's drug policy, you'd have to control for other factors like the types of drugs being used, comorbidities, age, etc. You are accusing a source (which you originally cited to support your own point) of cherrypicking but you are doing a lot of that yourself. What would be helpful would be an actual peer-reviewed study on the effects of the policy (which by the way has evolved and became quite a bit more restrictive after ca. 2015).

IceHegel 3y ago
> drug deaths have increased each year without fail So circling back to my original claim, it's certainly true in the US (see NIH source above). As for Portugal, it appears to be technically wrong because even though drug deaths are now above the 2001 pre legalization level, first there was a period of decline. However, I think my larger point stands even if it's unpopular, which is that legalization is empirically quite a selfish policy that is today masquerading as humanitarian.
- tfourb 3y ago
  I don't see any "empirical" evidence for your claim. I think it also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding, of the policies that are implemented by most countries. While "legalization" is the popular term for what is happening, professionals tend to talk of "harm reduction," because that is what is what is intended and also better describes what is actually happening in most cases. Most drugs are still illegal in Portugal and will remain so in Germany. I don't think there is a single country where Heroin is legal, Cocaine is legal only in a small number of South/Central American countries and even Cannabis is only legal in about 6 countries (and de facto parts of the US) worldwide. There is no broad movement that advocates a low-regulation distribution of all/most drugs in any country that I'm aware of. What is happening is that more and more countries treat drug use not as a criminal matter, but a public health issue. With the possible exception of Cannabis (where the risks seem so comparable to alcohol that it makes intuitive sense to many people to treat it at least broadly similar), the debate is not about legalization per se, but about how to effectively reduce consumption and the risks associated with it. This is where needle exchange programs, "drug checks," injection spaces, come from: They drastically reduce the harms associated with the use of certain drugs by improving the health outcomes of drug users. Combined with de-criminilization policies, they also provide the basis for health professionals to engage with drug users and start interventions. I really don't see anything "selfish" or "late empire" in that approach, maybe except that it will reduce my payments to the public health system long term.
whimsicalism 3y ago
You're right - I was mistakenly counting from year 2000, not the high point year 2001, and from 2000 it effectively doubled. > which you originally cited to support your own point I was not the original commentator. I agree with your second point that graphs like these are not enough to disentangle the impact of the drug policy, but it is also just not as simple a story as 'drugs legalized, overdoses went into a lower regime.' My guess is the real story is that drug legalization does lead to fewer drug ODs, but it is simply swamped by fentanyl.

by tfourb 3y ago

IceHegel 3y ago

> drug deaths have increased each year without fail So circling back to my original claim, it's certainly true in the US (see NIH source above). As for Portugal, it appears to be technically wrong because even though drug deaths are now above the 2001 pre legalization level, first there was a period of decline. However, I think my larger point stands even if it's unpopular, which is that legalization is empirically quite a selfish policy that is today masquerading as humanitarian.

tfourb 3y ago
I don't see any "empirical" evidence for your claim. I think it also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding, of the policies that are implemented by most countries. While "legalization" is the popular term for what is happening, professionals tend to talk of "harm reduction," because that is what is what is intended and also better describes what is actually happening in most cases. Most drugs are still illegal in Portugal and will remain so in Germany. I don't think there is a single country where Heroin is legal, Cocaine is legal only in a small number of South/Central American countries and even Cannabis is only legal in about 6 countries (and de facto parts of the US) worldwide. There is no broad movement that advocates a low-regulation distribution of all/most drugs in any country that I'm aware of. What is happening is that more and more countries treat drug use not as a criminal matter, but a public health issue. With the possible exception of Cannabis (where the risks seem so comparable to alcohol that it makes intuitive sense to many people to treat it at least broadly similar), the debate is not about legalization per se, but about how to effectively reduce consumption and the risks associated with it. This is where needle exchange programs, "drug checks," injection spaces, come from: They drastically reduce the harms associated with the use of certain drugs by improving the health outcomes of drug users. Combined with de-criminilization policies, they also provide the basis for health professionals to engage with drug users and start interventions. I really don't see anything "selfish" or "late empire" in that approach, maybe except that it will reduce my payments to the public health system long term.

whimsicalism 3y ago

You're right - I was mistakenly counting from year 2000, not the high point year 2001, and from 2000 it effectively doubled. > which you originally cited to support your own point I was not the original commentator. I agree with your second point that graphs like these are not enough to disentangle the impact of the drug policy, but it is also just not as simple a story as 'drugs legalized, overdoses went into a lower regime.' My guess is the real story is that drug legalization does lead to fewer drug ODs, but it is simply swamped by fentanyl.